[Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

Steve Coss coss at blodgettsupply.com
Wed Feb 13 20:12:49 EST 2008


AWESOME!!! I look forward to reading his reply.

 

________________________________

From: ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com]
On Behalf Of Matthew Shriver
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:49 PM
To: 'The Ibogaine List'
Subject: Re: [Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

 

Nick's response was just below Alex's email.  Check it out Simon I
thought he nailed it.

 

________________________________

From: ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com]
On Behalf Of simon loxton
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:32 AM
To: The Ibogaine List
Subject: Re: [Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

 

"I assume that all interventions are ineffective, unsafe and
cost-ineffective until proven otherwise and that includes iboguaine." 

 

Maybe he is confused and is not taking about ibogaine at all:) Well Nick
you are the best at answering this in my opinion and would like to see
the response. Quite a strong statement above. Does this mean that the
word of some one who has taken ibogaine or some one without the required
qualification to be recognised who has administered ibogaine is
worthless? If so then you may as well argue with a brick wall for all
its worth. Good luck; I look forward to the outcome of the convention.

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk>
To: The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2008 5:23:30 PM
Subject: [Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

I got a reply back from Alex Wodak and replied, both copied below

 

Nick

 

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

________________________________________

From: Alex Wodak [mailto:awodak at stvincents.com.au] 

Sent: 12 February 2008 23:53

To: Nick Sandberg

Cc: gerry.stimson at ihra.net

Subject: Re: Ibogaine Talk

 

Dear Mr Sandberg,

 

It is very unusual for people to debate an abstract of a talk before the
paper has been presented

 

I was invited to do this talk and accepted the invitation

 

My reward for that acceptance has been to be subjected to tirades

 

My abstract states that 

 

'Published evidence for Ibogaine as a treatment for heroin dependence is
unimpressive'. 

 

Please provide me with a list of publications that provides strong
empirical evidence for iboguaine. 

 

I have defined in the abstract exactly the kinds of publications I need:

 

''Evidence' means several rigorous scientific trials published in
reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating major benefits
consistently and in the absence of unacceptable side effects. Evidence
of effectiveness preferably (but not necessarily) requires randomised
controlled trials where this is possible. 'Evidence' is not a strong
theoretical rationale'. 

 

I note that you have already had the opportunity to provide this
information for me in your e-mail and have not already done so. 

 

You refer instead to unnamed studies.  

 

Please provide more details: Author, title, journal, year, volume,
pages. 

 

Please do so now. 

 

Please understand that neither of us has a monopoly on concern about the
plight of people you describe as 'addicts'

 

In my view it is not compassionate to advocate for a treatment unless we
know from evidence that the treatment is effective and safe (and
preferably also cost effective)

 

I am sure you know the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good
intentions....'

 

While you may regard the statment that 'Since the tragic experience of
thalidomide some decades ago, medicine has been based firmly on
scientific evidence' as manipluative, I note that you did not say it was
wrong. 

 

Just as well. 

 

That statement is correct. 

 

How can it be manipulative. 

 

I have just used the very same sentence in an editorial for a medical
journal. 

 

Neither of my 3 distinguished co-authors, nor the editor nor the 2
reviewers took exception to this comment. 

 

I don't have any position on iboguaine  - I certainly want more and
better treatments for injecting drug users 

 

But I don't have any desire to see iboguaine come or go 

 

My position, as outlined in the abstract, is very simple. 

 

I assume that all interventions are ineffective, unsafe and
cost-ineffective until proven otherwise and that includes iboguaine. 

 

If you want me to be impressed by iboguaine, then show me the evidence. 

 

It's that simple 

 

I assume after reviewing your qualifications that you do not appear to
have had any training in empirical research relevant to evaluation of
pharmaceutical treatments. 

 

None of us can cover all the areas that this field encompasses. 

 

Perhaps your qualifications and expetrience put you at a disadvantage
for reviewing scientific literature on empirical research relevant to
evaluation of pharmaceutical treatments

 

best wishes, 

 

Alex

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Sandberg [mailto:nick227 at tiscali.co.uk] 
Sent: 13 February 2008 15:17
To: 'Alex Wodak'
Cc: 'gerry.stimson at ihra.net'
Subject: RE: Ibogaine Talk

 

Hi Alex,

 

Thanks for getting back to me. It is not my intention to mindlessly give
you a hard time. It is not nice to be on the receiving end, for sure,
but I must say that if you did associate ibogaine with thalidomide then
it is perhaps not surprising that it happens. If not then it is
certainly unwarranted. The 2 papers I referred to in my letter to you
are as follows:

 

- Ibogaine: Complex Pharmacokinetics, Concerns for Safety, and
Preliminary Efficacy Measures - Neurobiological Mechanisms of Drugs of
Abuse, Volume 914 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
September 2000 - Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000;914:394-401) DEBORAH C.
MASH,a,b,h CRAIG A. KOVERA,o JOHN PABLO,o RACHEL F. TYNDALE,c FRANK D.
ERVIN,d IZBEN C. WILLIAMS,e EDWARD G. SINGLETON,f AND MANNY MAYOR

 

- The Ibogaine Medical Subculture - Journal of Ethnopharmacology 115
(2008) 9-24 Kenneth R. Alper Howard S. Lotsof Charles D. Kaplan

 

I fully appreciate your concern as to the lack of good empiric data. It
is true that much more research needs to be done. I would however
mention that even a basic Medline search will reveal many hundreds of
animal studies involving ibogaine. By no means is it the primary
intention of all of these studies to demonstrate efficacy, but if you
read at least some of them I believe it will become clear that
ibogaine's dependence-breaking characteristics are increasingly well
accepted by many scientists. Academics give ibogaine to rats often to
better understand the mechanistic pathways involved in the neurobiology
of addiction. 

 

As to the issue of manipulation. Firstly, I need to state that I am
basing my judgment on the abstract that was forwarded to me as being
written by yourself. If you did not write it then I unreservedly
apologise. 

 

To be honest, I would accuse the writer of this piece of manipulation on
two counts. Firstly, referring to the drug Thalidomide in the manner
that the writer did clearly is likely to create a reasonable degree of
association in the mind of the reader with Ibogaine. I'm not a
pharmacologist but my understanding is that Thalidomide is not
naturally-occurring and has not been used by native peoples for at least
some centuries. One might claim that the word is simply being used to
give some historical context as to the need for extensive clinical
trials and, whilst I would consider this fair, I would still hold that
the writer is creating an unwarranted association in the mind of the
reader. 

 

Secondarily, I find the picture of clinical trials that is presented by
the writer of this abstract utterly one-sided and, again, completely
manipulative. It is necessary to grasp that the business of bringing new
drugs to the market is almost wholly in the hands of "for profit"
entities. Ibogaine does not fit into the Pharm Corporation's idea of
what a suitable medication looks like and so they don't put money in to
develop it. I can give you more information here if you wish. Yet the
writer of this abstract fails to even mention this. If I were a casual
reader I would be left with the impression that ibogaine simply isn't
good enough, that it's been tried and found wanting. This is absolutely
not the case as a decent study of the background and history of the drug
will clearly show.

 

You claim you are not biased against ibogaine. That is absolutely not my
impression from reading that piece. I consider it absolutely
reprehensible to portray in such a manner a medication that clearly has
the potential to transform the treatment of drug and alcohol dependency
worldwide. I can scarcely believe that the writer of it could give a
damn about the plight of those who suffer with this worldwide.

 

Nick Sandberg

 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


  -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
(][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
  -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-

 

 

________________________________

Sent from Yahoo!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.c
om/evt=51949/*http:/uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html>  - a smarter
inbox.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20080213/80dce5a6/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list